The College Student's Back To School Guide To Intelligent Design

Part I: Letter of Introduction: Why This Student’s Guide?

Part II: Answers to Your Professor’s Most Common
Misinformed Objections to Intelligent Design

•(1) Intelligent Design Is Not Science

•(2) Intelligent Design Rejects All of Evolutionary Biology

•(3) Intelligent Design Has Been Banned From Public Schools by the
Federal Courts

•(4) Intelligent Design Is Just Politics

•(5) Intelligent Design Is a Science Stopper

•(6) Intelligent Design Is “Creationism” and Based on Religion

•(7) Intelligent Design Is Religiously Motivated

•(8) Intelligent Design Proponents Don’t Conduct or Publish Scientific
Research

•(9) Intelligent Design Has Been Refuted by the Overwhelming
Evidence for Neo‐Darwinian Evolution

Part III: Information About the Discovery Institute’s
Summer Seminars on Intelligent Design
________________________________________________________________________
Copyright Discovery Insitute 2009 – www.intelligentdesign.org
Part I: Letter of Introduction: Why This Student’s Guide?

Welcome to College, Goodbye to Intelligent Design?
The famous Pink Floyd song that laments, “We don’t need no education / We don’t need no thought control,” is
not just the rant of a rebellious mind; it is also a commentary on the failure of education to teach students how
to think critically and evaluate both sides of controversial issues.

Few scientists understood the importance of critical thinking better than Charles Darwin. When he first
proposed his theory of evolution in Origin of Species in 1859, Darwin faced intense intellectual opposition from
both the scientific community and the culture of his day. To help restore objectivity to the debate over
evolution, Darwin wisely counseled, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the
facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” 1

One would think that adopting Darwin’s approach to discussing evolution would be uncontroversial, but a lot
has changed in the past 150 years. Unfortunately, many evolution lobbyists today reject Darwin’s sound advice
and are dogmatically opposed to teaching anything but the viewpoint that supports Darwinian evolution.

For example, in 2005, Bruce Alberts, author of a leading college‐level biochemistry textbook and former
president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), published an editorial in the journal Cell suggesting
that “intelligent design [ID] should be taught in college science classes but not as the alternative to Darwinism
that its advocates demand.” 2 Instead, Alberts argued that students should only be taught “why intelligent
design is not science.” 3

Unsurprisingly, even major scientific groups like the NAS endorse Alberts’ one‐sided and dogmatic position. In
early 2008 the NAS proclaimed that, “there is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution” and
therefore “the intelligent design movement’s call to ‘teach the controversy’ is unwarranted.” 4 Is this education,
or indoctrination?

You Deserve More Than OneSided Education
The evolutionist educational agenda seems clear: like judges who would ask a jury to give a verdict after only
hearing one side of the case, evolution lobbyists push educators to give students only one‐sided presentations
of Darwin’s theory in the classroom. Are evolutionists secure enough to let their viewpoint be subjected to
hard questions? You decide for yourself: In recent years, many evolutionists have openly adopted an
educational approach that indoctrinates students in only one side of the debate. Some examples include:

• The president of the University of Idaho instituted a campus‐wide classroom speech‐code, where
“evolution” was “the only curriculum that is appropriate” for science classes. 5

• Cornell’s interim president devoted a State of the University Address “to denounce ‘intelligent design,’
arguing that it has no place in science classrooms and calling on faculty members in a range of
disciplines” to similarly attack ID. 6

• The University of California at San Diego’s website stated that “all first quarter freshmen” were
“required to attend” a lecture at the campus’s sports arena given by an anti‐ID activist, titled, “Why the
Judge Ruled Intelligent Design Creationism Out of Science.” 7

• A professor of biochemistry and leading biochemistry textbook author at the University of Toronto
stated that a major public research university “should never have admitted” students who support ID,
and should “just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students.” 8

• Biology professors at Southern Methodist University taught a course attacking ID. The course website
stated, “You don’t have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap.” 9
________________________________________________________________________

• Three top biology professors at Ohio State University derailed a doctoral student’s thesis defense by
writing a letter claiming “there are no valid scientific data challenging macroevolution” and therefore
the student’s teaching about problems with neo‐Darwinism was “unethical” and “deliberate
miseducation.” 10

• A Biology 101 lecturer at Wesleyan College endorsed teaching students “inaccuracies” that are “wrong”
if that enables educators to “gain their trust” and “help them accept evolution.” 11

• At Iowa State University, over 120 faculty members signed a petition denouncing ID and calling on “all
faculty members to ... reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.” 12

ID‐critics in some arenas have become so intolerant that in 2007, the Council of Europe, the leading European
“human rights” organization, adopted a resolution calling ID a potential “threat to human rights”! 13

Go Educate Yourself: Three Tips for Studying Intelligent Design and Evolution
After attending public schools from kindergarten through my masters degree, I learned a few lessons about
staying informed while studying a biased and one-sided origins curriculum. My large, inner-city public high
school was rich in diversity, and I learned to appreciate a multiplicity of viewpoints and backgrounds.
Unfortunately, this diversity did not extend into the biology classroom. There I was told there was one, and
only one, acceptable perspective regarding origins: neo-Darwinian theory. As students head back to school
this year, I want to share some tips I’ve learned to help students stay informed on this topic:
Tip #1: Never opt out of learning evolution. In fact, learn about evolution every chance you get.
I hope you are going to college because you want to be educated. But if the above examples are any indication,
there’s a good chance that when it comes to intelligent design and evolution, your institution has no intent to educate
you, but to indoctrinate you in only one side of the issue.
Despite the one-sided nature of education, I found that the more evolutionary biology I took, the more I became
convinced that the theory was based upon unproven assumptions, contradictory methodologies, and supported weakly
by the data. So my first tip is to never be afraid to study evolution. But when you do study evolution, always think
critically and keep yourself proactively informed about a diversity of viewpoints (see tips 2 and 3 below).
Tip #2: Think for yourself, think critically, and question assumptions.
Though my professors rarely (if ever) would acknowledge it, I quickly discovered in college that nearly all
evolutionary claims are based mostly upon assumptions. Modern evolutionary theory is assumed to be true, and then
the data is interpreted based upon Darwinian assumptions. The challenge for you, the truth-seeking student, is to
always try to separate out the raw data from the assumptions that guide interpretation of the data.
Keep your eyes out for circular reasoning. You’ll see that very quickly, evolutionary assumptions become “facts,” and
future data must be assembled in order to be consistent with those “facts.”
Realize that evolutionary thinking often employs contradictory logic and inconsistent methodologies. The logic
employed to infer evolution in situation A may be precisely the exact opposite of the logic used to infer evolution in
situation B. Here are a couple examples:
•Biological similarity between two species implies inheritance from a common ancestor (i.e. vertical common
descent) except for when it doesn’t (and then they appeal to processes like "convergent evolution" or
"horizontal gene transfer").
•Neo-Darwinism predicts transitional forms may be found, but when they’re not found, that just shows that the
transitions took place too rapidly and in populations too small to (statistically speaking) become fossilized.
________________________________________________________________________
•Evolutionary genetics predicts the genome will be full of useless junk DNA, except for when we discover
function for such “junk” DNA. Then evolution predicts that cells would never retain useless junk DNA in the
first place.
When both A and (not) A imply evolution, you know a theory is based upon an inconsistent scientific methodology.
Keep an eye out for assumptions and contradictory methodologies, for they abound in evolutionary reasoning.
Finally, you must be careful to always think for yourself. Everyone wants to be "scientifically literate," but the
Darwin lobby pressures people by redefining “scientific literacy” to mean “acceptance of evolution” rather than “an
independent mind who understands science and forms its own informed opinions.” Evolutionary thinking banks on
you letting down your guard and letting its assumptions slip into your thought processes. This is why it’s vital that
you think for yourself and question assumptions.
Critical thinking showed me what neo-Darwinian evolution was really all about: a set of questionable assumptions,
not a compelling conclusion. Self-initiated critical thinking can be a tall task, but seeking the truth is worth every
mental calorie expended.
Tip #3: Proactively learn about credible scientific viewpoints that dissent from Darwinism on your own time, even
if your classes censor those non-evolutionary viewpoints.
The Darwinian educational establishment doesn’t make it easy for you to become objectively informed on the topic of
evolution and intelligent design, but with a little work on your own, it can be done. If you want to base your views on
a full and complete understanding of the scientific evidence, you may need to take the time to pro-actively research
and investigate the pro-ID arguments that many of your faculty may be opposing, misrepresenting, or perhaps even
outright censoring. Yes, take courses advocating evolution. But also read material from credible Darwin skeptics to
learn about other viewpoints. Only then can you truly make up your mind in an informed fashion.
The purpose of this College Student’s Back to School Guide on Intelligent Design is to help you in that investigation,
and to give you direct rebuttals to some of your professors’ misinformation and point you to further resources from
academically credible, ID-friendly perspectives. Whatever conclusion you come to, study evolution, think for
yourself, think critically, question assumptions, and investigate dissenting viewpoints on your own time!
While academia’s intolerance towards the pro-ID viewpoint may be intimidating or discouraging, don’t be
discouraged: If the evidence were on their side, ID’s critics would not resort to such extreme tactics of indoctrination.
And don’t forget that most of the scientists and scholars in the ID movement were once students—quietly enduring
misinformation or biased instruction from their faculty. Some of them even faced outright persecution due to their
views on ID. You are not alone, and with a little proactive self-education, critical thinking, and patience, you will
pass this test with flying colors. I wish you the best as you enter this exciting but sometimes difficult-to-handle
debate.
Sincerely,
Casey Luskin, J.D., M.S. (Earth Sciences)

Program Officer, Public Policy & Legal Affairs
Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute
Contact: Discovery Institute Web:

208 Columbia St.
Seattle, WA 98104 • Discovery Institute: www.discovery.org
• Intelligent Design: www.intelligentdesign.org
E‐mail: cluskin@discovery.org • Evolution News Blog: www.evolutionnews.org
Phone: (206) 292‐0401, ext. 119 • ID the Future Podcast: www.idthefuture.com
Fax: (206) 682‐5320
________________________________________________________________________
Part II: Answers to Your Professor’s Most Common Misinformed Objections to
Intelligent Design

Objection #1: Intelligent Design Is Not Science

The Short Rebuttal: Intelligent design is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims.
Specifically, it detects design by using empirical data to test its positive predictions. ID is based upon empirical
data and uses well‐accepted scientific methods of the historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types
of complexity which we understand, from present‐day observations, are derived from intelligent causes. One
can disagree with ID, but one cannot characterize it fairly as a “faith‐based” argument.

The Long Rebuttal: Intelligent design uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is
commonly described as a four‐step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.
• Observations: ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce specified complexity (also
called complex and specified information, or “CSI”). ID theorist Stephen C. Meyer observes that, “Our
experience‐based knowledge of information‐flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified
complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or
personal agent.” 14
• Hypothesis: ID theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.
• Experiment: Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain
CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC), which exists in systems composed of
“several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the
parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” 15 IC can be experimentally tested by reverse‐
engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function.
• Conclusion: Irreducibly complex systems would be unlikely to evolve through a Darwinian process because
there exists no evolutionary pathway wherein they could remain functional during each small evolutionary
step. 16 IC is a reliable indicator of design because “[i]n all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause
of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the
origin of the system.” 17 When ID researchers find IC in biology, they conclude that such structures were
designed.

ID is an historical science, meaning it employs the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that the “present
is the key to the past.” ID thus begins with present‐day observations of the products of human or animal
intelligence and notes the types of information that result. ID theorists then examine the historical record to
determine if those same informational properties exist in nature and therefore warrant explanation by design.
Design proponents thus use standard uniformitarian reasoning to apply an empirically‐derived cause‐and‐
effect relationship between intelligence and certain types of informational patterns to the historical scientific
record in order to account for the origin of various natural phenomena.

ID is not a “faith‐based” argument. It is an empirically‐based argument that seeks to detect in nature the types
of complexity which we know derive from intelligent causes. One can disagree with the conclusions of ID, but
one cannot reasonably claim that it is an argument based upon religion, faith, or divine revelation.

More Information:
•Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer (HarperOne, 2009).
• The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems by William Dembski and
Jonathan Wells (Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 2007) — www.thedesignoflife.net
• Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe (Free Press, 1996).
•“DNA and Other Designs,” by Stephen C. Meyer, First Things (April, 2000) — www.discovery.org/a/200
•“Intelligent design (ID) has scientific merit…,” by Casey Luskin — www.discovery.org/a/7051
•“The Positive Case for Design” — www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1394
________________________________________________________________________
Objection #2: Intelligent Design Rejects All of Evolutionary Biology

The Short Rebuttal: Intelligent design does not reject all of evolutionary biology. ID “does not challenge the
idea of ‘evolution’ defined as either change over time or common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea
that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.” 18

The Long Rebuttal: The debate over evolution can be confusing because equivocation has crept into the
discussion. Some people use “evolution” to refer to something as simple as small changes in the sizes of bird
beaks. Others use the same word to mean something much more far‐reaching. Used one way, the term
“evolution” isn’t controversial at all; used another way, it’s hotly debated. Used equivocally, “evolution” is too
imprecise to be useful in a scientific discussion. Darwin’s theory is not a single idea. Instead, it is made up of
several related ideas, each supported by specific arguments:

• Evolution #1: First, evolution can mean that the life forms we see today are different than the life forms that
existed in the distant past. Evolution as “change over time” can also refer to minor changes in features of
individual species — changes which take place over a short amount of time. Even skeptics of Darwin’s
theory agree that this type of “change over time” takes place.
• Evolution #2: Some scientists associate the word “evolution” with the idea that all the organisms we see
today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. The claim became
known as the Theory of Universal Common Descent. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on
earth as a great branching tree.
• Evolution #3: Finally, some people use the term “evolution” to refer to a cause or mechanism of change, the
biological process which Darwin thought was responsible for this branching pattern. Darwin argued that
natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of
Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Neo‐
Darwinian” evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA
provide the variation upon which natural selection acts.

Intelligent design does not conflict with evolution if by “evolution” one simply means “change over time,” or
even that living things are related by common ancestry (Evolution #1 or Evolution #2). However, the dominant
theory of evolution today is neo‐Darwinism (Evolution #3), which contends that evolution is driven by natural
selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable
direction or goal, including survival of a species.” 19 It is this specific claim made by neo‐Darwinism that
intelligent design directly challenges.

More Information:

•IntelligentDesign.org — www.intelligentdesign.org/science.php

•The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism by Michael Behe (Free Press, 2007).

•“How Should Schools Handle Evolution? Debate it,” by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer in USA
Today (August 26, 2005) — www.discovery.org/a/2786

•“The Meanings of Evolution,” by Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas, in Darwinism, Design, and Public
Education, edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (Michigan State University Press, 2004) —
www.discovery.org/a/645

________________________________________________________________________
Objection #3: Intelligent Design Has Been Banned From Public Schools by the
Federal Courts

The Short Rebuttal: ID has not been banned from America’s public schools by the U.S. Supreme Court or by
any federal appeals court. The only court that has squarely ruled on teaching of ID was one federal district
court (the lowest level of the federal court system), whose ruling is not binding precedent outside the small
school district in Dover, Pennsylvania. Spend a day in law school and you’ll learn that judges get things wrong
all the time. In fact, the district court ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover misrepresented the arguments given by pro‐
ID expert witness biologists and wrongly denied the existence of peer‐reviewed scientific articles and research
supporting ID. The judge who ruled in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case (Judge Jones) copied over 90% of his section
on whether ID is science verbatim or nearly verbatim from an inaccurate brief written by plaintiffs’ lawyers
working with the ACLU. Judge Jones’ ruling satisfied the textbook definition of judicial activism, and even
leading anti‐ID legal scholars have argued his ruling is “dangerous” to religious, scientific, and academic
freedom.

The Long Rebuttal: In our 3‐tiered system of federal courts, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling was issued by the
lowest level of a federal trial court. No other court case has squarely dealt with the issue of teaching ID. Thus,
despite all its fanfare, the Kitzmiller ruling only applies to the parties in that case; no other school district in the
United States is subject to a judge’s ruling banning ID. The Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling made many factual and
legal mistakes. To be specific, Judge Jones:

• Incorrectly Defined ID by presuming that ID requires “supernatural creation” — a position refuted during
the trial by ID proponents who testified in court;
• Ignored the positive case for ID and falsely claimed that ID proponents make their case solely by arguing
against evolution;
• Overstepped the bounds of the judiciary and engaged in judicial activism by declaring that ID had been
refuted when in fact the judge was presented with credible scientific witnesses and publications on both
sides showing evidence of a scientific debate;
• Used poor philosophy of science by presuming that being wrong precludes being scientific;
• Blatantly ignored and denied the existence of proID peerreviewed scientific publications that were in
fact testified about in his own courtroom;
• Blatantly ignored and denied the existence of proID scientific research and data that was in fact testified
about in his own courtroom;
• Adopted an unfair doublestandard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives
count against ID but never against Darwinism;
• Violated a fundamental rule of constitutional law by declaring a religious belief to be “false” from the
bench of a U.S. government court;
• Uncritically reused material from a legal brief written by attorneys working with the ACLU. Indeed, “90.9%
(or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’s 6,004‐word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually
verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ submitted to Judge Jones
nearly a month before his ruling” 20 ;
• Engaged in textbook judicial activism by presuming that it is permissible for a federal judge to define
science, settle controversial social questions, settle controversial scientific questions, and settle issues for
parties outside of the case at hand so that his ruling would be “a primer” for people “someplace else”;
• Wrongly—and dangerously—turned science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required
for an idea to be scientific. Stephen Jay Gould, writing with other scientists, eloquently explained why
science should never be a popularity contest: “Judgments based on scientific evidence, whether made in a
laboratory or a courtroom, are undermined by a categorical refusal even to consider research or views that
contradict someone’s notion of the prevailing “consensus” of scientific opinion. . . . Automatically rejecting
dissenting views that challenge the conventional wisdom is a dangerous fallacy, for almost every generally
accepted view was once deemed eccentric or heretical. Perpetuating the reign of a supposed scientific
________________________________________________________________________
orthodoxy in this way, whether in a research laboratory or in a courtroom, is profoundly inimical to the
search for truth. … The quality of a scientific approach or opinion depends on the strength of its factual
premises and on the depth and consistency of its reasoning, not on its appearance in a particular journal or
on its popularity among other scientists. 21

Arnold H. Loewy, a self‐described “liberal First Amendment theorist,” has critiqued Judge Jones’ judicial
opinion by arguing that “it is not the Court’s job to distinguish good science from bad in the realm of
education.” 22 Similarly, anti‐ID legal scholar Jay Wexler argues that “the part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to
be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps
dangerous both to science and to freedom of religion.” 23 Judge Jones’ ruling represented an ACLU‐scripted
attempt to legislate from the bench—not an accurate or fair assessment of intelligent design.

More Information:
•www.TraipsingingIntoEvolution.com has an extensive collection of materials relating to the Kitzmiller v. Dover
case, including legal briefs filed by Discovery Institute.

•Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision, by David K. DeWolf, John G.
West, Casey Luskin, Jonathan Witt (Discovery Institute Press, 2006) — www.TraipsingIntoEvolution.com

•“Intelligent Design will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” by David K. DeWolf, John West, Casey Luskin, in Montana
Law Review, Vol. 68:7 (Winter, 2007) — www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB‐
download.php?command=download&id=1372

________________________________________________________________________
Objection #4: Intelligent Design Is Just Politics

The Short Rebuttal: Intelligent design has a growing, promising, and thriving scientific research program and
by no means is ID “just politics.” The charge that ID is “politics” ignores the vast body of pro‐ID academic
literature that makes scientific arguments for design in nature and ignores the research into intelligent design
being conducted by pro‐ID scientists who hold respectable academic credentials and present their views in
peer‐reviewed scientific publications. Additionally, the priority of the ID movement is actually to do research
and avoid politicizing ID, which is why leading ID organizations oppose mandating ID into public schools.

The Long Rebuttal: Leading ID proponents are well‐credentialed scientists and scholars who have conducted
scientific research and have made their case for design to the scientific community. Not only do notable ID
proponents hold tenured positions at respected universities, but they have have published more than a decade
of scholarship in reputable academic books and journals about the empirical evidence supporting design. Pro‐
ID scientific works have come from prestigiously published scientific sources such as Cambridge University
Press, MIT Press, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Michigan State University Press, Protein
Science, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, and Journal of Molecular Biology. (Documentation of some of these
publications is given in the response to Objection 8: “Intelligent Design Proponents Don’t Conduct or Publish
Scientific Research.”)

Additionally, the Biologic Institute is a vibrant center of research by pro‐ID scientists who are conducting both
laboratory experiments and computer simulations to study the scientific evidence for intelligent design. Some
of the areas of research being conducted at the Biologic Institute include:
• The origin and role of information in biology: Biologic researchers and collaborators are measuring the
functional information in proteins by examining their ability to withstand sequence alterations. Teaming
up with mathematicians like William Dembski, they examine the issue of fundamental constraints on
search‐based acquisition of information. They are also building and testing computational models that
mimic the role of genetic information in specifying functions by means of structure‐forming sequences.
• Functional constraints and design constraints: To understand the requirements for life, Biologic scientists
are examining the properties of stars that make Earth‐like planets possible. They are also looking at the
nature of information and codes and probing molecular machines and enzyme folds. This includes
modifying, analyzing, and modeling genes and genomes and building model systems to see how they
evolve.
• Design patterns and hallmarks: Biologic scientists make scientific investigations of the way that humans go
about designing complex things. Some of the questions they ask include, What are the universal principles of
complex design? What stamp, if any, do these principles leave on things manufactured according to a complex
design specification? Are any of these stamps present in living systems? Are there consistent aesthetic aspects
of design—aspects of designed things that are neither functional nor logical necessities, but which are
reliably present in human designs? Are any of these present in life?
If anything, the educational policies promoted by leading ID groups show that they do not want to turn ID into
a political issue. The ID movement’s priority is to see ID advance through scientific research, not to turn ID
into a political hot potato. For this reason, Discovery Institute states on its education policy page, “As a matter
of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort require the teaching of intelligent design by school
districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the
theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the
scientific community.” 24

More Information:
•Much of the above information was drawn from the Biologic Institute research website —
BiologicInstitute.org/research
•The Evolutionary Informatics Lab Website — www.evoinfo.org
•The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Jonathan Wells (Regnery, 2006) —
www.darwinismandid.com
________________________________________________________________________
Objection #5: Intelligent Design Is a Science Stopper

The Short Rebuttal: ID does not “stop science” because if ID is correct, it brings scientists to a better
understanding of reality, thereby advancing scientific knowledge. ID also promises to encourage and open up
lines of scientific investigation in fields such as biochemistry, genetics, systematic, cell biology, systems biology,
animal biology, bioinformatics, information theory, paleontology, physics, and cosmology. A prime example of
ID’s promise to further biology and medicine is research into “junk” DNA, where ID predicts function but
Darwinism has hindered such investigations.

The Long Rebuttal: Intelligent design does not stop science. Science is supposed to be an empirical search for
the truth, so if intelligent design is the correct answer, then concluding ID would further the progress of
science. Moreover, ID promises to open up new avenues of scientific research in fields such as:
• Biochemistry, where ID encourages scientists to recognize and understand the origin of complex and
specified information in proteins and DNA.
• Genetics, where ID encourages scientists to seek function for so‐called “junk” DNA.
• Systematics, where ID encourages scientists to understand whether similarities between living species,
including examples of extreme genetic “convergence,” are best explained by ID rather than Darwinism.
• Cell biology, where ID encourages scientists to view the cell as “designed structures rather than accidental
by‐products of neo‐Darwinian evolution,” 25 allowing scientists to better understand molecular machines.
• Systems biology, where ID encourages biologists to look at various biological systems as integrated
components of larger systems that are designed to work together in a top‐down, coordinated fashion.
• Animal biology, where ID encourages scientists to seek function for allegedly “vestigial” structures.
• Bioinformatics, where ID encourages scientists to look for new layers of information and functional
language embedded in the genetic codes, as well as other codes within biology.
• Information theory, where ID encourages scientists to understand where intelligent causes are superior to
natural causes in producing certain types of information.
• Paleontology, where ID encourages scientists to understand how the irreducibly complex nature of
biological systems can predict punctuated change and stasis throughout the history of life.
• Physics and Cosmology, where ID encourages scientists to investigate and discover instances of fine‐tuning
of the laws of physics, which uniquely allow for the existence of advanced forms of life.
To elaborate on the second item, ID stands in contrast to neo‐Darwinism in that it has encouraged scientists to
seek function for non‐coding DNA, also called “junk” DNA. As William Dembski wrote in 1998, “on an
evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect
DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. … Design encourages scientists to look for function where
evolution discourages it.” 26 A 2003 article in Scientific American exposes how evolutionary assumptions have
stopped research into junk‐DNA. According to the article, “introns,” a type of non‐coding DNA found within
genes, “were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk.” But once it was discovered that introns play vital
roles regulating gene production, a leading biologist was quoted saying the failure to recognize function for
intronic DNA might have been “one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” 27 Under an ID
perspective, such mistakes might have been avoided much earlier, thus furthering our knowledge of
biochemistry and progress in medicine.

In conclusion, ID is not “giving up” or “stopping science.” Rather, ID is invoking precisely the correct causal
mechanism to explain the origin of information in biology. When critics claim that one cannot invoke ID
because it will “stop science,” it is they who are actually stopping science.

More Information:
•Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference by Michael J. Behe — www.discovery.org/a/54
•The Privileged Planet: How our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery, by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards
(Regnery, 2004) — www.privilegedplanet.com
•“Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research,” by Jonathan Wells, in Progress in Complexity, Information,
Design, 3.1.2 (November 2004) — www.iscid.org/papers/Wells_TOPS_051304.pdf
________________________________________________________________________

Objection #6: Intelligent Design Is “Creationism” and Based on Religion

The Short Rebuttal: ID is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature
acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the
product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically
starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. ID starts with the
empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what scientific inferences can be drawn from that evidence.
Unlike creationism, ID does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected
through science is supernatural. The charge that ID is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of critics
who wish to delegitimize ID without actually addressing the merits of its case.

The Long Rebuttal: ID as a scientific theory limits its scientific claims to what can be learned from the
empirical data and does not attempt to address religious questions about the identity or metaphysical nature
of the designer. This makes ID distinct from creationism and shows that ID respects the limits of scientific
inquiry. Setting any potential failings of methodological naturalism aside, ID does not violate methodological
naturalism’s requirements that scientific claims be based upon observable, repeatable, and reliable scientific
investigations. Those who try to equate ID with creationism usually misconstrue the following facts about ID:
• ID detects design, not designers: Many critics mistakenly think ID is focused upon studying the designer,
alleging that it specifically invokes supernatural forces or a deity. But ID is not focused on studying the
actual intelligent cause responsible for life. Instead, ID studies objects in nature to determine if natural
objects bear an informational signature indicating that an intelligent cause was involved in their origin.
• ID is limited in its scope: ID limits its claims to what can be learned from the empirical data, meaning that it
does not try to address religious questions about the identity or nature of the designer. While the empirical
data can allow us to study natural objects and determine whether they arose from an intelligent cause, the
empirical data may not allow us to determine the identity or metaphysical nature of the intelligent cause.
• Principled, not rhetorical: The refusal of ID proponents to use ID to draw scientific conclusions about the
nature or identity of the designer is principled rather than merely rhetorical. ID’s non‐identification of the
designer stems from a desire to take a scientific approach, respect the limits of scientific inquiry, and not
inject religious discussions about theological questions into science.
• Critics admit ID is different from creationism: Even ID’s leading critics admit that ID is not creationism
when defined as young earth creationism (“YEC”). As Eugenie Scott writes, “most ID proponents do not
embrace a Young Earth, Flood Geology, and sudden creation tenets associated with YEC.” 28
• ID doesn’t appeal to the supernatural: When creationism is defined broadly (i.e. the view that
“supernatural” powers created life), 29 ID still is not creationism. In its 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling,
the U.S. Supreme Court basically adopted this definition, finding that creationism was religion because it
referred to a “supernatural creator.” 30 Since ID does not try to determine whether the designer is natural
or supernatural, it lacks the key characteristic that causes creationism to be unscientific and
unconstitutional.
• ID uses scientific methods: Creationists base their claims upon faith or divine revelation; ID makes its
arguments using the scientific data, not faith or divine revelation.
• Implications don’t disqualify ID from being science: Just like neo‐Darwinism, the scientific theory of
intelligent design may have implications for religion, but it is not based on religion.

More Information:
•The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design by William Dembski (InterVarsity
Press, 2004).
•“Intelligent Design is not Creationism,” by Stephen C. Meyer, The Daily Telegraph (February 9, 2006) —
• “ID Does Not Address Religious Claims About the Supernatural,” by Casey Luskin — www.discovery.org/a/7501
• “Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same,” by John G. West, Research News and Opportunities in
Science and Theology (December, 2002) — www.discovery.org/a/1329

________________________________________________________________________

Objection #7: Intelligent Design is ReligiouslyMotivated

The Short Rebuttal: Even if this happened to be true, so what? In science, motives don’t matter—only the
evidence matters. Some religiously motivated scientists (such as Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton) turned
out to be right. The fact that they were religiously motivated did not harm their science. Moreover, many
leading evolutionists have expressed anti‐religious motives. If ID critics claim that the religious motives of ID‐
proponents make ID unscientific, then to be consistent they must accept that the anti‐religious motives of
leading evolutionists make Darwinism unscientific. Harping upon the alleged religious motives of ID‐
proponents also offends the principles behind the First Amendment, which promise that all persons—whether
religious or not—have equal freedom to make their case to the public square.

The Long Rebuttal: Pro‐ID scholars have published over a decade of scholarship in reputable academic books
and journals about the empirical evidence supporting design. Critics often avoid rebutting this scholarship by
instead trotting out quotes from ID proponents discussing their own personal religious beliefs, motives, and
affiliations, or discussing the larger philosophical implications they draw from ID, to allege that ID is not
science, but religion. These common attacks against ID are both logically fallacious and hypocritical for at least
three reasons:

First, such arguments offend the First Amendment’s protections on religious freedom: Scientists have freedom
of religion, and their scientific views should not be disqualified due to their alleged religious motives or beliefs.
Religious beliefs and motives of a scientist are irrelevant to whether they are scientifically correct.

Second, in science, the motives or personal religious beliefs of scientists don’t matter; only the evidence
matters. For example, the great scientists Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton were inspired to their scientific
work by their religious convictions that God would create an orderly, rational universe with comprehensible
physical laws that governed the motion of the planets. They turned out to be right—not because of their
religious beliefs but because the scientific evidence validated their hypotheses. (At least, Newton was thought
to be right until Einstein came along!) Their personal religious beliefs, motives, or affiliations did nothing to
change the fact that their scientific theories had inestimable scientific merit that helped lay the foundation for
modern science.

Third, evolutionists who raise objections to ID based upon the alleged religious motives of ID proponents
make a highly hypocritical argument, for many leading evolutionists have expressed blatantly anti‐religious
motives. This fact does not disqualify evolution from being scientific, but it shows that the religious or anti‐
religious motives and beliefs of scientists do not make a theory unscientific. Leading proponents of
Darwinian evolution frequently express anti‐religious motives or raise the cultural and metaphysical
implications of the theory in their writings. For example:

• Eugenie Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and was called by
the scientific journal Nature “perhaps the nation’s most high‐profile Darwinist.” 31 But Scott is also a public
signer of the Third Humanist Manifesto, an aggressive statement of the humanist agenda to create a world
with “without supernaturalism” based upon the view that “[h]umans are … the result of unguided
evolutionary change” and the universe is “self‐existing.” 32
• Barbara Forrest, another prominent pro‐evolution activist believes that “philosophical naturalism” is “the
only reasonable metaphysical conclusion.” 33 Dr. Forrest also sits on the Board of Directors of the New
Orleans Secular Humanist Association, 34 an associate member of the American Humanist Association,
which publishes the Humanist Manifesto III. 35 Forrest is also on the board of the NCSE. 36
• Richard Dawkins is Oxford University’s Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science
and is probably the most famous evolutionist in the world. Dawkins argues that belief in God is a
“delusion” 37 and that “Darwin made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” 38 Dawkins has
stated his goal is “to kill religion,” 39 and when he received an award from the American Humanist
________________________________________________________________________
Association, he declared that “faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but
harder to eradicate.” 40
• Douglas Futuyma has declared in a popular college‐level textbook that “[b]y coupling undirected,
purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or
spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.” 41
• Stephen Jay Gould, a leading paleontologist before his death in 2003, discussed the “radical philosophical
content of Darwin’s message” and its denial of purpose in the universe: “First, Darwin argues that evolution
has no purpose. . . . Second, Darwin maintained that evolution has no direction. . . . Third, Darwin applied a
consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature. Matter is the ground of all existence;
mind, spirit, and God as well, are just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity.” 42
• William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell University, has similarly stated that “belief in modern
evolution makes atheists of people” and that “[o]ne can have a religious view that is compatible with
evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” 43
• Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Laureate in physics and public advocate one‐sided pro‐Darwin‐only dogmatic
evolution education, 44 says that his scientific career is motivated by a desire to disprove religion: “I
personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that! One
of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions
of science—to free people from superstition.” 45 Weinberg elaborates on what he means by “superstition,”
as he hopes that “this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes
and bodhisattvas will come to an end, that we’ll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which
science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can
make.” 46
• In November, 2006 the New York Times covered a conference held at the scientific research hub The Salk
Institute. The story reported a striking agenda on the part of leading scientists present at the conference to
stifle religious belief in order to promote Darwinism to the public: “one speaker after another called on
their colleagues to be less timid in challenging teachings about nature based only on scripture and belief.”
The scientists were worried that scientific theories like evolution by natural selection and other views are
“losing out in the intellectual marketplace,” and one scientist sarcastically said the viewpoints expressed at
the conference “have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a
baseball bat?” 47

These examples are not given to argue that evolution is not science, or that one cannot accept evolution and
religion. In science, the personal religious (or anti‐religious) motives of scientists don’t matter; only the
evidence matters. Neither ID nor neo‐Darwinian evolution should be disqualified from being scientific simply
because of the religious (or anti‐religious) motives of their proponents.

More Information:
• Darwin Day in America: How Politics and Culture have been Dehumanized in the Name of Science by John G.
West (ISI Books, 2007) — www.darwindayinamerica.com
• Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil by Cornelius G. Hunter (Brazos Press, 2001).
• “Any larger philosophical implications of intelligent design, or any religious motives, beliefs, and affiliations
of ID proponents, do not disqualify ID from having scientific merit,” by Casey Luskin —
________________________________________________________________________
Objection #8: ID Proponents Don’t Conduct or Publish Scientific Research

The Short Rebuttal: This claim is flatly false. ID proponents do conduct scientific research and do publish in
mainstream scientific venues. Research supporting ID concepts and arguments has been published and
discussed in Journal of Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, Protein Science, Chaos, Solitons and
Fractals, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, PLOS Biology, and Annual Review of Genetics.

The Long Rebuttal: Criticss often claim that intelligent design proponents do not publish peer‐reviewed
scientific papers or that they do not do scientific research. Both of these claims are demonstrably false.

Regarding research conducted by the intelligent design movement, a research lab called the Biologic Institute
conducts scientific research into intelligent design. A summary of its research and list of selected research
publications produced by affiliates of the lab may be found on its website (listed below). Some of this research
was also discussed in response to the Objection 4: “Intelligent Design is Just Politics.”Regarding peer‐reviewed
scientific research, scientists and theorists who support the theory of intelligent design have published their
work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer‐reviewed scientific journals, peer‐reviewed
scientific books (some published by university presses), peer‐edited scientific anthologies, peer‐edited
scientific conference proceedings, and other mainstream scientific sources. Some examples include:

• Journal of Molecular Biology: Douglas A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting
Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341: 1295‐1315 (2004); Douglas A. Axe,
“Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of
Molecular Biology, Vol. 301: 585‐595 (2000). These articles report the results of the author’s mutational
sensitivity experiments on proteins that demonstrate that there are high levels of complex and specified
information within proteins. According to the author, these findings “call into question the adequacy of
chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.” 48
• Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington: Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information
and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117: 213‐
239 (2004). This article reviews research in the fields of information theory, paleontology, and
biochemistry and concludes, “An experience‐based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory
hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate‐‐and perhaps the most causally
adequate‐‐explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian
animals and the novel forms they represent.”
• Protein Science: Michael .J. Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein
Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13: 2651‐2664 (2004). This
article reports the authors’ research into computer simulations of evolution that show that various protein‐
protein interactions could not evolve within normal population sizes.
• Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature: Scott Minnich and Stephen C.
Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A.
Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004). This article underwent conference peer review and reports experimental
research that refutes key claims in evolutionist attempts to explain how the flagellum evolved.
• Dynamical Genetics: W.‐E. Lönnig, “Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible
complexity,” in Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101‐119. This peer‐reviewed book contribution to a scientific
anthology outlines much of the scientific research supporting irreducible complexity, specified complexity,
and intelligent design and describes research programs that are being inspired by the theory of ID.

More Information:
• Peer‐Reviewed & Peer‐Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) —
• “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” by Stephen Meyer, in Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117: 213‐239 (2004) — www.discovery.org/a/2177
________________________________________________________________________
Objection #9: Intelligent Design Has Been Refuted by the Overwhelming Evidence
for NeoDarwinian Evolution

The Short Rebuttal: The evidence for neo‐Darwinian evolution is not “overwhelming.” While it remains the
dominant view within biology, a growing minority of scientists dissent from Darwin. Over 800 doctoral
scientists have signed a public statement proclaiming, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random
mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” 49 Signers of the list include members of
the national academies of science in the United States, Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, and India
(Hindustan), as well as faculty and researchers from a wide range of universities and colleges, including
Princeton, MIT, Dartmouth, Ohio State, Tulane, and the University of Michigan. Biological and chemical
evolution lack supporting evidence in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, taxonomy and systematics,
paleontology, and the chemical origins of life.

The Long Rebuttal: Biological and chemical evolution lack supporting evidence in many scientific fields:

Genetics: Mutations Tend to Cause Harm and Do Not Build Complexity. Darwinian evolution relies on
random mutations which are selected by natural selection, a blind and unguided process that has no goals.
Such a random and undirected process tends to harm organisms. It does not seem capable of improving
organisms or building new, complex systems. Many scientists have questioned whether natural selection
acting upon random mutation is sufficient to generate new species or new complex biological features. Leading
biologist Lynn Margulis criticizes the standard Darwinian mechanism by stating that the “Darwinian claim to
explain all of evolution is a popular half‐truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the
religious ferocity of its rhetoric.” 50 She further observes that “new mutations don’t create new species; they
create offspring that are impaired.” 51

Stanley Salthe, author of an evolutionary biology textbook, proclaims, “I have become an apostate from
Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth.” 52 Philosopher Jerry Fodor
recently wrote that “at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is
faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far.” 53 National Academy of Sciences member
Phil Skell also questions the explanatory utility of natural selection, observing that, “Darwinian evolution—
whatever its other virtues—does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.” 54

Biochemistry: Unguided and Random Processes Cannot Produce Cellular Complexity. Cells contain
incredible complexity, similar to machine technology but dwarfing anything produced by humans. Cells use
circuits, miniature motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error‐checking machinery which
decodes and repairs our DNA. Past U.S. National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts (who opposes
ID) has described this complexity in the journal Cell as an elaborate factory: “The entire cell can be viewed as a
factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of
large protein machines.” 55 But could such integrated complexity evolve in a stepwise, Darwinian fashion?
Michael Behe recalls that in Origin of Species, Darwin admitted that if “any complex organ existed which could
not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely
break down.” 56 According to Behe, “by opening the ultimate black box, the cell,” modern science “has pushed
Darwin’s theory to the limit.” 57

The simplest cell requires hundreds of genes, numerous complex biological machines and biochemical
pathways, and a fully functional genetic code in order to survive. Darwinian evolution—blind natural selection
acting on random mutations—has failed to provide Darwinian explanations for how basic cellular
biochemistry might have evolved. Five years after Behe published Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Franklin
Harold stated in an Oxford University Press monograph that “there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” 58

________________________________________________________________________
Paleontology: The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils. The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of
abrupt explosions of new biological forms, where possible candidates for evolutionary transitions are the
exception, not the rule. For example, in the Cambrian Explosion (530 million years ago), nearly all the major
body plans of animals appear in a geological instant without any apparent evolutionary precursors.

In 1979, paleontologist David Raup wrote that “we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of
the fossil record has been greatly expanded ... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary
transition than we had in Darwin’s time.” 59 Evolutionists may claim that there are a multitude of transitional
forms known from the fossil record, yet a textbook published over 20 years later acknowledges that the fossil
record has not given clues to help explain the origin of animal phyla in the Cambrian explosion: “Most of the
animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, ‘fully formed,’ in the Cambrian some 550
million years ago...The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of
the various animal phyla.” 60

This is not the only such explosion in the fossil record. Paleontologists have observed a fish explosion, a plant
explosion, a bird explosion, and even a mammal explosion. Abrupt explosions of mass biological diversity seem
to be the rule, not the exception, for the fossil record. Transitions plausibly documented by fossils seem to be
the rare exception. As evolutionary biologist, the late Ernst Mayr, wrote in 2001, “When we look at the living
biota, whether at the level of the higher taxa or even at that of the species, discontinuities are overwhelmingly
frequent. . . . The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the
fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.” 61 This phenomenon
exists not only at the species level but also among higher taxa, as one zoology textbook admits: “Many species
remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different,
but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed,
and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.” 62

Taxonomy and Systematics: Biologists Have Failed to Construct Darwin’s Tree of Life. Biologists hoped
that DNA evidence would reveal a grand tree of life where all organisms are clearly related. Yet trees
describing the alleged ancestral relationships between organisms based upon one gene or biological
characteristic commonly conflict with trees based upon a different gene or characteristic. This implies a
challenge to universal common descent, the hypothesis that all organisms share a single common ancestor.

Evolutionists commonly assert that shared amino acids in genes common to many types of organisms indicate
that all life shares a common ancestor. This circular argument rests upon the assumption that shared genetic
similarities must be the result of common descent. Intelligent design is not necessarily incompatible with
common ancestry, but it must be noted that intelligent agents commonly re‐use parts that work in different
designs. Thus, similarities in genetic sequences may also be generated as a result of functional requirements
and common design rather than by common descent.

Darwin’s tree of life—the notion that all living organisms share a universal common ancestor—has faced
increasing difficulties in the past few decades. Phylogenetic trees based upon one fundamental gene or protein
often conflict with trees based upon another gene or protein. In fact, this problem is particularly acute when
one studies the “ancient” genes at the base of the tree of life, which many evolutionists wrongly claim
demonstrate universal common ancestry. As W. Ford Doolittle explains, “Molecular phylogenists will have
failed to find the ‘true tree,’ not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong
genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.” 63 Doolittle attributes his
observations to gene‐swapping among microorganisms at the base of the tree. But Carl Woese, the father of
evolutionary molecular systematics, finds that such problems exist beyond the base of the tree: “Phylogenetic
incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings
within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.” 64

Evolutionists will commonly cite the congruence of the Cytochrome C tree with standard evolutionary trees as
confirming theories of common descent. They rarely discuss the Cytochrome B tree, which has severe conflicts
________________________________________________________________________
with the standard phylogeny of animal groups. 65 Cherry‐picking data does not inspire confidence in the
methods used to construct phylogenetic trees and advocate for common descent.

Looking higher up the tree, a recent study conducted by Darwinian scientists tried to construct a phylogeny of
animal relationships but concluded that “[d]espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed,
relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved.” 66 The basic problem is that phylogenetic trees
based upon one gene or other characteristic will commonly conflict with trees based upon another gene or
macro‐characteristic. As a review article in New Scientist recounted, even among higher organisms “[t]he
problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” leading one scientist to say that
“We’ve just annihilated the tree of life.” 67 Indeed, the Cambrian explosion, where nearly all of the major living
animal phyla (or basic body plans) appeared over 500 million years ago in a geological instant, also raise a
serious challenge to Darwinian explanations of common descent.

Chemical Evolution: The Chemical Origin of Life Remains an Unsolved Mystery. The mystery of the origin
of life is unsolved, and all existing theories of chemical evolution face major problems. Basic deficiencies in
chemical evolution include a lack of explanation for how a primordial soup could arise on the early earth’s
hostile environment, or how the information required for life could be generated by blind chemical reactions.
Leading evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci has admitted that “we really don’t have a clue how life
originated on Earth by natural means,” 68 and leading origin of life researcher David Deamer asserts that
“genetic information more or less came out of nowhere by chance assemblages of short polymers.” 69

Origin of life theorists have struggled simply to account for the origin of pre‐biological organic chemicals on
the early earth, with little success. For example, it is now known that the gasses used in the famous Miller‐
Urey experiments were not present on the early earth. But this is only the beginning of the problem. When
trying to “make” the first life‐form, scientists cannot rely upon Darwinian processes. Darwinian evolution
requires replication, and prior to the origin of life there was no replication. Origin of life theorist Robert
Shapiro explains that an explanation for the first self‐replicating molecule “has not yet been described in
detail or demonstrated” but “is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism.” 70 Accounting
for the origin of a self‐replicating molecule would still not explain how modern cells arose. Our DNA code
requires an irreducibly complex system requiring the information in DNA, the enzymes that assist DNA’s
replication and protection, a protective cell membrane, and a complex system of machinery used to
transcribe and translate language of DNA into protein. Faced with the complexity of this system, biologist
Frank Salisbury lamented in 1971 that “the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless.
There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment.” 71 In 1995, leading
biologists John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary explained that accounting for the origin of this system
remains “perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology” because “the existing translational
machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal and so essential that it is hard to see how it could
have come into existence or how life could have existed without it.” 72

Scientists may one day create life in the lab, but they will have done so using intelligent design. The theory that
life could have originated via blind natural chemical processes and sheer dumb luck remains unexplained.

More Information:
•Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against NeoDarwinism by Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Paul Nelson,
Jonathan Moneymaker, Ralph Seelke (Hill House, 2007) — www.exploreevolution.com
•Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson (InterVarsity Press 1991).
•The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen
(Philosophical Library, 1984).
•Icons of Evolution: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong, by Jonathan Wells (Regnery, 2000) —
www.iconsofevolution.com
•“Survival of the Fakest,” by Jonathan Wells, American Spectator (January, 2001) — www.discovery.org/a/1209

________________________________________________________________________
Part III: Information About the Discovery Institute’s Summer Seminars on
Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design

Each summer the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute hosts an extraordinary opportunity for
college students in the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities to participate in an intensive nine‐day
seminar program that will prepare them to make research contributions advancing the growing science of
intelligent design. Two seminars are available:

• Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences is designed for college‐level juniors, seniors, and first‐year
graduate students who intend to pursue graduate studies in the natural sciences or the philosophy of
science.
• Intelligent Design in the Social Sciences and Humanities is designed for college‐level juniors,
seniors, and first‐year graduate students who intend to pursue graduate studies in the social sciences
(including law) or the humanities.

Both seminars run concurrently and explore cutting‐edge ID work in molecular biology, biochemistry,
embryology, developmental biology, zoology, paleontology, computational biology, ID‐theoretic mathematics,
cosmology, physics, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, evolutionary ethics, bioethics, criminology, law,
education, and economics. Each seminar also includes frank treatment of the academic realities that ID
researchers confront in graduate school and beyond, and strategies for dealing with them.

The seminar focusing on ID in the natural sciences will explore the scientific issues in greater technical detail
and include a visit to a laboratory where molecular biological research is pursued from an ID perspective. The
seminar on ID in the social sciences and humanities will give more in‐depth attention to the social impact of
science, the moral implications of science, and legal issues surrounding the debate between neo‐Darwinism
and intelligent design. Participants in both seminars will benefit from classroom instruction and interaction
with prominent ID researchers and scholars such as Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, Douglas Axe,
Scott Minnich, Bruce Gordon, John West, and Casey Luskin.

Do you have a commitment to truth and to following the evidence where it leads? Do you have the desire, the
vision and the determination necessary to breathe new purpose into the scientific enterprise and influence its
self‐understanding in ways that will benefit both science and humanity? Apply to become one of a select group
of students participating in these exciting workshops.

Admission Requirements: You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or
first‐year graduate student. Required application materials include a resume/cv, a copy of your academic
transcript, a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career
plans and field of study, and either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is
friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with Dr. Bruce Gordon, CSC Research Director.

Room, Board, and Travel Costs: Students selected for these seminars will have their travel costs to Seattle
fully or partly covered and will be provided with course materials, lodging and most meals.

Application deadline: Students can apply or find out more information by going to
www.discovery.org/summerseminar. Questions should be directed to Dr. Bruce Gordon, Research Director,
Center for Science and Culture at bgordon@discovery.org.

For more information, see www.discovery.org/summerseminar
________________________________________________________________________

References Cited:
1
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, ed. J. W. Burrow (London: Penguin Group, 1985), (1859), 66.
2
Bruce Alberts, "A Wakeup Call for Science Faculty," Cell, Vol. 123:739-741 (Dec. 2, 2005).
3
Bruce Alberts, "A Wakeup Call for Science Faculty," Cell, Vol. 123:739-741, (Dec. 2, 2005).
4
See Casey Luskin, “The Facts about Intelligent Design: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences' Science, Evolution, and Creationism” at http://www.discovery.org/a/4405
5
Timothy P. White, "Letter to the University of Idaho Faculty, Staff and Students" (October 4, 2005), http://www.president.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=85947
6
Scott Jaschik, “A Call to Action Against Intelligent Design,” Inside Higher Education (October 24, 2005) at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/24/id
7
University of California, San Diego Forces All Freshmen To Attend Anti-ID Lecture, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/11/university_of_california_san_d.html
8
See “Leading Biochemistry Textbook Author: Pro-ID undergraduates ‘should never have [been] admitted,’” at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/11/author_of_leading_biochemistry.html
9
See “How to Teach Intelligent Design, SMU Style: ‘You don't have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap,’ at
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/how_to_teach_intelligent_desig.html
10
The plight of Bryan Leonard plight is described in Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, pgs. 189-190 (Regnery, 2006).
11
See “Lying in the Name of Indoctrination,” at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/lying_in_the_name_of_indoctrin.html
12
See "Intelligent Design torpedoes tenure," at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55774 (May 19, 2007) and "Riled by Intelligent Design," at
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/education/edlife/HedIntelligent.html
13
Council of Europe, The dangers of creationism in education, September 17, 2007, http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11375.htm
14
Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004).
15
Michael J. Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference, in Intelligent Design Creationism, in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical,
Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, pg. 247 (Robert T. Pennock ed., MIT Press 2001).
16
As Darwin wrote in Origin of Species, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
theory would absolutely break down.”)
17
Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, pg. 8, at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=389
18
Stephen C. Meyer, "A Scientific History and Philosophical Defense of the Theory of Intelligent Design," Staat - Gesellschaft, Vol. 7 (2008), at
19
National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution.
20
John G. West & David K. DeWolf, “A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’,” at
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1186
21
Brief Amici Curiae of Physicians, Scientists, and Historians of Science in Support of Petitioners, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
22
Arnold H. Loewy, “The Wisdom and Constitutionality of Teaching Intelligent Design in Public Schools,” 5 First Amendment Law Review 82, 85 (2006).
23
Jay D. Wexler, “Kitzmiller and the ‘Is It Science?’ Question,” 5 First Amendment Law Review 90, 93 (2006).
24
Discovery Institute's Science Education Policy, at http://www.discovery.org/a/3164
25
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?,” Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, Vol. 98:71-96 (2005).
26
William Dembski, "Intelligent Science and Design," First Things, Vol. 86:21-27 (October 1998).
27
Quoted in Wayt T. Gibbs, “Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk,” Scientific American (November, 2003).
28
Eugenie C. Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, pg. 128 (Greenwood Press, 2004).
29
National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, pg. 7 (2nd ed., 1999); Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, pg. 4 (2nd ed InterVarsity Press.,
1993); Eugenie Scott, “Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States,” 26 Annual Review of Anthropology 263, 266 (1997); National Science Teachers, Position Statement on the Teaching of
Evolution; Robert Pennock, Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics: Philosophical, Theological & Scientific Perspectives, pg. 646 (Robert Pennock, ed. MIT Press, 2001); William A. Dembski,
The Design Revolution, pg. 40 (InterVarsity Press, 2004); Barbara Forrest & Paul Gross, Creationism’s Trojan Horse, pg. 283 (Oxford University Press, 2004).
30
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 482, 592 (1987).
31
Geoff Brumfiel, “Who Has Designs on Your Students’ Minds?,” Nature, Vol. 434:1062 (April 28, 2005).
32
"Humanism and its Aspirations," at http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm
33
Barbara Forrest, “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection,” Philo, Vol. 3(2):7-29 (Fall-Winter, 2000).
34
New Orleans Secular Humanist Assn., Who’s Who, NOSHA’s Board of Directors, http://www.nosha.secularhumanism.net/whoswho.html
35
New Orleans Secular Humanist Assn., About Us, http://www.nosha.secularhumanism.net/index.html
36
NCSE website, “Our Staff,” http://www.ncseweb.org/ourstaff.asp
37
See Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Bantam Press 2006).
38
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pg. 6 (W. W. Norton, 1986).
39
Casey Luskin, “Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss "evangelize" for Evolution at Stanford,” at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/richard_dawkins_and_lawrence_k.html
40
Richard Dawkins, Is Science A Religion? 57 Humanist (Jan./Feb. 1997), at http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html
41
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg. 5 (3rd ed., Sinaeur Associates. 1998).
42
Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, pgs. 12–13 (W.W. Norton & Co. 1977).
43
William B. Provine, No Free Will in Catching up with the Vision S117, S123 (Margaret W. Rossiter ed., University of Chicago Press 1999).
44
See Forrest Wilder, “Academics need to get more involved,” Opinion, The Daily Texan, Oct. 2, 2003, at
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/paper410/news/2003/10/02/Opinion/Academics.Need.To.Get.More.Involved-510574.shtml
45
Stephen Weinberg, Free People from Superstition, at http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2000/april2000/weinberg.html
46
Stephen Weinberg, Free People from Superstition, at http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2000/april2000/weinberg.html
47
George Johnson, "A Free-for-All on Science and Religion," The New York Times (November 21, 2006) (emphasis added), at
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/science/21belief.html?_r=1&ref=science&pagewanted=print
48
See Douglas Axe quoted in “Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology ‘Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design’,” at
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/journal_of_molecular_biology_a.html
49
See "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," at http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org
50
Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, pg. 29 (Basic Books, 2003).
51
Lynn Margulis quoted in Darry Madden, "UMass Scientist to Lead Debate on Evolutionary Theory," Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer (Feb 3, 2006).
52
Stanley Salthe quoted in Discovery Institute, "40 Texas scientists join growing national list of scientists skeptical of Darwin" (September 5, 2003), at http://www.discovery.org/a/1555
53
Jerry Fodor, "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings," London Review of Books (October 18, 2007), at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html
54
Philip S. Skell, "Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology," The Scientist (August 29, 2005), at http://www.discovery.org/a/2816
55
Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, Vol. 92:291 (February 8, 1998).
56
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1859), Chapter 6, available at http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html.
57
Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, pg. 15 (Free Press, 1996).
58
Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life, pg. 205 (Oxford University Press, 2001).
59
David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1) (1979).
60
R.S.K. Barnes, P. Calow & P.J.W. Olive, The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis, pgs. 9-10 (3rd ed., Blackwell Sci. Publications, 2001).
61
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, pg. 189 (Basic Books, 2001).
62
C.P. Hickman, L.S. Roberts, and F.M. Hickman, Integrated Principles of Zoology, pg. 866 (Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, 1988, 8th ed).
63
W. Ford Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science, Vol. 284:2124-2128 (June 25, 1999).
64
Carl Woese "The Universal Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 95:6854-9859 (June, 1998).
65
See Michael S. Y. Lee, “Molecular phylogenies become functional,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14: 177-178 (1999).
66
Antonis Rokas, Dirk Krueger, Sean B. Carroll, "Animal Evolution and the Molecular Signature of Radiations Compressed in Time," Science, Vol. 310:1933-1938 (Dec. 23, 2005).
67
Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009).
68
Massimo Pigliucci, "Where Do We Come From?," in Darwin, Design and Public Education, pg. 196 (Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell, eds., Michigan State University Press, 2003).
69
David Deamer quoted in Susan Mazur, “David Deamer: Line Arbitrary Twixt Life & Non-Life” (September 10, 2008), at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0809/S00127.htm
70
Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, pg. 207 (Summit Books, 1986).
71
Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," pg. 338, American Biology Teacher (September, 1971).
72
John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, The Major Transitions in Evolution, pg. 81 (W.H. Freeman, 1995).
________________________________________________________________________

The College Student's Back To School Guide To Intelligent Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The College Student's Back To School Guide To Intelligent Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Casey Luskin, J.D., M.S. (Earth Sciences)

Contact: Discovery Institute Web:

You might also like